[anonyme-honteux]

I'm french and I clicked on this link, worried to learn about mass surveillance programs, NSA or communist china style.

But no, this time, it was about the welfare state doing its job, doing it mostly well, with details that were more impressive than I anticipated, and also opening its data to external analysts to continue improve it.

That was quite an emotional ride !

[nfeutry]

They did not want to open it, they were forced to by the "Commission d'Accès aux Document Administratifs". And the published code is probably outdated.

[anonyme-honteux]

I missed that context, thanks!

[boudin]

It's not the whole truth though, it's thanks to associations like La Quadrature du Net https://www.laquadrature.net/ that they had to share their algorithm.

It also shows a bias towards single familly with low income, adding pressure to families already in state of precarity. It doesn't mean it's intentional but it is still an issue.

The fact that there are no proper audit of those algorithms before allowing those to be used looks quite bad in my opinion. This can be quite impactful on people's life.

[anonyme-honteux]

I missed the context where it was associations that put the issue on the table. In the end we have an audit that show a bias against single family with low income. The bias itself is bad, but having an audit is good, it's the first step to improve things somewhat

[smallpipe]

Did you read the article? The code was obtained using a FOI request, and the model targets vulnerable making mistakes in claiming benefits rather rather than actual fraud.

Which bit is the one you're impressed with ? The part where you personally will be fine?

[logicalmonster]

> the model targets vulnerable making mistakes in claiming benefits rather rather than actual fraud

Please keep in mind that this algorithm doesn't actually punish anybody for wrongdoing, it's just a starting point for a human-led investigation.

Personally, I'd be more interested to know how a human-led investigation works. Is the process fair and reasonable? Do they go after poor people for minor problems with their following of the rules or do they go after them harshly? Is there a presumption of innocence and do they have an opportunity to appeal and have a fair shake in arguing their case?